3 ms·

How would you, given the total resources devoted to the problem today, improve how homeless and poor people in the Bay Area are treated? I believe per capita t

by rdl 13y ago

How would you, given the total resources devoted to the problem today, improve how homeless and poor people in the Bay Area are treated? I believe per capita there are more resources spent in the Bay Area than in a lot of other places, but either it is less effective here, or the problem is just more visible -- I don't notice the same level of problems in most other parts of the US. Is the problem mainly with people who fall from working class and could easily be pushed back up, or with long term hardcore homeless (with drug, alcohol, or mental illness issues?). Is it mainly single men (who I notice on the street the most), children, families? Why is it so hard to get good data? Would a charity focused on collecting that data be more effective per marginal dollar than marginal dollars spent directly on naive solutions?

TallGuyShort 13y ago
First let me say that I don't think I have good answers for most of these questions, but that I think these are exactly the right kinds of questions to be asking. Regarding how I would use the total resources, I don't know, specifically (which is part of my problem). I think in general the best long-term solution is to get the values of personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and genuine charity better ingrained into our culture. Again - how do you do that specifically? I don't know. But I think that's ultimately a root cause of a lot of the problems in society. That's where I would like to focus my attention more. As for who it is that becomes homeless. In my experience, it's been pretty evenly split between men and women, and pretty evenly split between "fallen from working class" and "long term hardcore homelessness with ... issues", although I suspect my specific work has been more than usually biased towards the fallen-from-working-class folks. I very rarely see families with children fall from working class, actually. Of all the classes we're discussing - I think that's the most significant pattern. (edit: I can think of several individuals who had children and nearly became homeless - they've always been the most willing to do work that was "below them", accept help, and make the necessary long-term changes. I don't know if this is because they had kids, or related to why they had kids in the first place) I think it's hard to get good data because it's easy for existing political biases to cloud the data (and I'm as guilty of that as anybody), and because so much of the real, underlying issues are very sensitive and / or subjective. Labeling people as lazy, crazy, unlucky, etc. is a very hard thing to do consistently and fairly, if it's even possible. Anyone who tries is likely to be disagreed with no matter what anyway.
- rdl 13y ago
  I would hope categorizing people as "unlucky", "lazy", "crippled", "mentally deficient", "addicted", etc. would be less offensive if it is in the context of giving them assistance tailored to their needs. I.e. I am generally in favor of basic income instead of virtually all other government assistance, but in the case of someone who is an addict, giving him $2k in cash might be more likely to kill him vs help him -- a drug treatment program and regimented living situation for a year might be better.
Kurtz79 13y ago
"I don't notice the same level of problems in most other parts of the US" It's probably a combination of various factors : - The mild climate makes it much easier to face cold winters and hot summers for a homeless, as bad as their life is there it would be worse elsewhere. - The local administrations are probably more tolerant than the ones in other parts of the US. - The area is expensive (housing ridiculously so) by US standards, meaning that is way harder for people on minimum wage to save money, and losing their job can be a fatal blow. I think the problem is at national level, it's just more apparent here, given also the contrast with so many people that are well-off.

by rdl 13y ago

TallGuyShort 13y ago

First let me say that I don't think I have good answers for most of these questions, but that I think these are exactly the right kinds of questions to be asking. Regarding how I would use the total resources, I don't know, specifically (which is part of my problem). I think in general the best long-term solution is to get the values of personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and genuine charity better ingrained into our culture. Again - how do you do that specifically? I don't know. But I think that's ultimately a root cause of a lot of the problems in society. That's where I would like to focus my attention more. As for who it is that becomes homeless. In my experience, it's been pretty evenly split between men and women, and pretty evenly split between "fallen from working class" and "long term hardcore homelessness with ... issues", although I suspect my specific work has been more than usually biased towards the fallen-from-working-class folks. I very rarely see families with children fall from working class, actually. Of all the classes we're discussing - I think that's the most significant pattern. (edit: I can think of several individuals who had children and nearly became homeless - they've always been the most willing to do work that was "below them", accept help, and make the necessary long-term changes. I don't know if this is because they had kids, or related to why they had kids in the first place) I think it's hard to get good data because it's easy for existing political biases to cloud the data (and I'm as guilty of that as anybody), and because so much of the real, underlying issues are very sensitive and / or subjective. Labeling people as lazy, crazy, unlucky, etc. is a very hard thing to do consistently and fairly, if it's even possible. Anyone who tries is likely to be disagreed with no matter what anyway.

rdl 13y ago
I would hope categorizing people as "unlucky", "lazy", "crippled", "mentally deficient", "addicted", etc. would be less offensive if it is in the context of giving them assistance tailored to their needs. I.e. I am generally in favor of basic income instead of virtually all other government assistance, but in the case of someone who is an addict, giving him $2k in cash might be more likely to kill him vs help him -- a drug treatment program and regimented living situation for a year might be better.

Kurtz79 13y ago

"I don't notice the same level of problems in most other parts of the US" It's probably a combination of various factors : - The mild climate makes it much easier to face cold winters and hot summers for a homeless, as bad as their life is there it would be worse elsewhere. - The local administrations are probably more tolerant than the ones in other parts of the US. - The area is expensive (housing ridiculously so) by US standards, meaning that is way harder for people on minimum wage to save money, and losing their job can be a fatal blow. I think the problem is at national level, it's just more apparent here, given also the contrast with so many people that are well-off.